Your advice sought on ebay dispute

He did nothing wrong and fulfilled his part of the contract. Why should he suffer a loss?

Click to expand...

Bengal offered some very interesting points which have me thinking. But I still can't get over one thing. Several here are proffering that if a buyer specifically opts not to pay for insurance in order to save money, he still has 'fulfilled his part of the contract' and should be guaranteed delivery of the goods or money back. So you' re saying that if he pays for the insurance he is guaranteed delivery of the goods or money back. And if he specifically chooses not pay for the insurance he is guaranteed delivery of the goods or money back. This assertion would completely invalidate any basis a seller has for charging the buyer the cost of insurance in the first place. It makes no sense.

Logic dictates, to me anyway, that by specifically opting not to pay for insurance in order to save money, the buyer is conciously exchanging his guarantee of receiving the goods in favor of a guarantee that the goods will merely be shipped, and that in such a case the seller has fulfilled his end of the contract by the act of shipping the merchandise. Simply put the buyer assumes a risk in order to save money. It seems obvious to me, to the point that I've mentally debated the risk to me of the insurance/no insurance question for very low priced items I've bought. Hundreds of times in fact.

this is so simple - buyer CHOSE not to buy insurance. so the seller has no responsibiity.

Similar thing happened to me, where buyer chose not to insure something and it arrived broken. He filed a complaint and lost. As it should be. I still got negative feedback, I took it like an e-man.

Some 100% feedback sellers cave into feedback blackmail like you are describing. I strongly recommend you don't cave in. Take the feedback and move on.

In the future, I would simply REQUIRE insurance and calculate it into your fees. I do this every time now.

Originally Posted by A Harris

Click to expand...

So you' re saying that if he pays for the insurance he is guaranteed delivery of the goods or money back. And if he specifically chooses not pay for the insurance he is guaranteed delivery of the goods or money back. This assertion would completely invalidate any basis a seller has for charging the buyer the cost of insurance in the first place. It makes no sense.

That is precisely what I am saying!

Your arguement assumes that the buyer has some responsibility to see that the item is delivered to him. He has no such responsibility. That responsibility lies solely with the seller, assuming that the buyer has met his obligations.

Originally Posted by tonylumpkin

Click to expand...

That is precisely what I am saying!

Your arguement assumes that the buyer has some responsibility to see that the item is delivered to him. He has no such responsibility. That responsibility lies solely with the seller, assuming that the buyer has met his obligations.

Well if that's true then you have a legal and moral basis to challenge any company in the world who tries to charge you for insurance. Good luck with that.

I took it like an e-man

Click to expand...

In the future, I would simply REQUIRE insurance and calculate it into your fees. I do this every time now.

Click to expand...

Yep, that is what I do.

Originally Posted by A Harris

Click to expand...

Well if that's true then you have a legal and moral basis to challenge any company in the world who tries to charge you for insurance. Good luck with that.

In that case the insurance is required as a condition of the sale. It then becomes part of the buyers obligations under the contract. The same could be true if it were required as a condition of the auction. The problem lies in making it optional and that is why I suggested making it a required part of the auction.

Originally Posted by A Harris

Click to expand...

Bengal offered some very interesting points which have me thinking. But I still can't get over one thing. Several here are proffering that if a buyer specifically opts not to pay for insurance in order to save money, he still has 'fulfilled his part of the contract' and should be guaranteed delivery of the goods or money back. So you' re saying that if he pays for the insurance he is guaranteed delivery of the goods or money back. And if he specifically chooses not pay for the insurance he is guaranteed delivery of the goods or money back. This assertion would completely invalidate any basis a seller has for charging the buyer the cost of insurance in the first place. It makes no sense.

Logic dictates, to me anyway, that by specifically opting not to pay for insurance in order to save money, the buyer is conciously exchanging his guarantee of receiving the goods in favor of a guarantee that the goods will merely be shipped, and that in such a case the seller has fulfilled his end of the contract by the act of shipping the merchandise. Simply put the buyer assumes a risk in order to save money. It seems obvious to me, to the point that I've mentally debated the risk to me of the insurance/no insurance question for very low priced items I've bought. Hundreds of times in fact.

Well said

Originally Posted by A Harris

Click to expand...

Bengal offered some very interesting points which have me thinking. But I still can't get over one thing. Several here are proffering that if a buyer specifically opts not to pay for insurance in order to save money, he still has 'fulfilled his part of the contract' and should be guaranteed delivery of the goods or money back. So you' re saying that if he pays for the insurance he is guaranteed delivery of the goods or money back. And if he specifically chooses not pay for the insurance he is guaranteed delivery of the goods or money back. This assertion would completely invalidate any basis a seller has for charging the buyer the cost of insurance in the first place. It makes no sense.

Logic dictates, to me anyway, that by specifically opting not to pay for insurance in order to save money, the buyer is conciously exchanging his guarantee of receiving the goods in favor of a guarantee that the goods will merely be shipped, and that in such a case the seller has fulfilled his end of the contract by the act of shipping the merchandise. Simply put the buyer assumes a risk in order to save money. It seems obvious to me, to the point that I've mentally debated the risk to me of the insurance/no insurance question for very low priced items I've bought. Hundreds of times in fact.

i always thought this too and agree with you but if any dispute arises over lost goods and paypal/ebay will favor to the buyer and force seller to pay him back in the case no insurance was bought. no?
i believe this is the case, frighteningly unfair for the honest seller.

Having taken the CA bar almost a year ago, my knowledge of general contract law has been lost for some time.

This would be a UCC governed question. I forget what the default risk of loss rule is, but it is either as soon as seller places goods with the carrier, or when buyer receives the goods. I'm also not sure how state law is implicated in an interstate transaction, especially since there is no formal contract dictating this.

I am obviously not lending any concrete answer, but perhaps this will refocus the issue so that someone may give a more definitive answer, rather than exchanging ideas of what "should be" the right answer, because there in all likelihood is one.

Can't the buyer file a claim against USPS anyway? There can't just be no recourse for having something stolen by an employee. I thought I read something about this on here before.

http://www.law.unlv.edu/faculty/rowl...ofLossSp06.pdf

I'm no lawyer, but if I am reading the above right, it looks like responsibility lies with the seller if the seller hires/pays the shipping company, unless otherwise agreed between the buyer and seller at the outset. So I suppose the question would be whether the buyer choosing not to pay for insurance constitutes an agreement to assume the risk.

Gentlemen, you buy something by mail order at Brooks Brothers, Landsend, Dell, whoever. You pay for the goods, you pay for shipping whatever the company asks for (which might be "˜free shipping' in certain circumstances).

Do you have the right to receive the goods? Do you have the right to receive them in good order and undamaged or unbroken? If an employee of BB or the courier company steals your packet in the warehouse, is BB no longer responsible? If that Dell computer arrives broken, can Dell walk away from it?

Do you think there should be a difference between a small and a large mail-order business?

It's a gray area. To be honest, once the stuff is in the care of a shipping company, I would hold them responsible. Since I wouldn't suspect those companies of doing it deliberately, I wouldn't really expect them to pay. But since they are big, I'd expect them to help me with the dispute.

If I bought something from a small company or a person and all I got was a ripped open box, I'd just hope they would feel like helping out with it, but I'd blame USPS more than them, and I would file a claim and threaten to escalate it and cause trouble (I hear they hate this) until they fixed the problem.

Originally Posted by j

Click to expand...

I'd blame USPS more than them, and I would file a claim and threaten to escalate it and cause trouble (I hear they hate this) until they fixed the problem.

but doesn't the insurance-less-ness pretty much snuff out your leverage (see the "that's what insurance is for" theory offered by A harris)?

I think of insurance as being for expediting the process if something gets damaged or lost. But once something is in their care, I guess I consider them responsible for not letting someone steal it.

I mean, you check a bag through the airlines, do you need to buy insurance in order to make a claim if one of the throwers helps himself to your ties?